L1 and L2 cognitive effort during note taking and writing
Marie-Laure Barbier
Centre PsyCLE, Université de provence
29 avenue Robert schuman, 13621, Aix-en-Provence Cedex 1, France
[email protected]
Annie Piolat
Centre PsyCLE, Université de provence
29 avenue Robert schuman, 13621, Aix-en-Provence Cedex 1, France
[email protected]
Key words: writing, note taking, second language, cognitive effort
Introduction
Context
This study was conducted in the context of the European Community, where more and more students are today
enrolled in foreign universities. Studying in a foreign university not only requires that students learn a second
language; they must also learn in this second language. In other words, to obtain their diploma, they are obliged to
develop bilingual skills by acquiring sufficient and automated knowledge about linguistic processes (Ransdell,
Arecco, & Levy, 2001; Roca de Larios, Murphy, Marin, 2002) within contextualized activities that take place with
regularity, such as writing and note taking.
In their second language classroom, students are generally supported pedagogically for writing. But they are not
often trained in the types of note taking methods that would most efficiently help them gather and retain
information. Further, students need to be instructed on how to take notes, as note taking is a complex activity that
requires the activation of both the understanding and production processes (Faraco, Barbier & Piolat, 2002,
Clerehan, 1995). Indeed, note takers not only have to copy what is heard, observed or thought. They must also
comprehend information, select what to record, format it in ways that are often different from the source material,
and try to store it by writing it down. Note taking requires, in an emergency situation, the activation of all of the
individual’s cognitive resources. The analysis of such activity is therefore important to the future invention of
pedagogical supports.
Comparison between writing and note taking, in L1 and L2
For two decades, research about writing cognitive processes have been productive, by considering both L1 and L2
contexts of experimentations. It is known that writing constitutes a complex activity for students, even in their native
language. Referring to Kellogg’s model (1996), this activity involves the articulation of three processes: the
execution process (programming and executing) which is generally automated for students at university; the
formulation process (planning and translating) and the control process (reading and editing) which are both highly
demanding of working memory resources.
In a second language, the same processes are required to succeed in producing texts of good quality, but students
generally perform worse in writing in L2 (Ransdell & Barbier, 2002; Whalen & Ménard ; 1995 ; Roca de Larios,
Murphy & Marin, 2002). They are focused on linguistic problems that lead them to interrupt more often their
transcription, as it has been shown by previous researches about pauses studies. Text production by L2 students
is generally more fragmented, with more frequent and longer pauses (Barbier, 1998 ; Krings, 1994 ; Roca de
Larios et al., 2001). Moreover, these interruptions don’t appear with regularity - at propositional boundaries, for
instance - as in L1. Rather, they are more often located within propositions, at inter- and intra-words boundaries
(Barbier, 1998; Ransdell & Levy, 1998). L2 writers are therefore less fluent and more hesitating than in their native
language, and it is evident that constraints on formulation processes have consequences on their generation and
organization of ideas. Indeed, when producing text at upper levels, writers in L2 often have difficulty
conceptualizing. They generally produce texts with less ideas, and less coherence (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992 ;
Pennington & So, 1993).
Hence, the articulation between the whole of the processes involved in L2 tasks could explain the difficulties during
written text production in L2. One of the explanations given in the literature is to consider that adult writers learning
a second language are commonly overloaded in working memory, with cognitive resources allocated specifically for
translating and reading. But still a few researchers have given data about cognitive load during writing in L2, by
using the double task paradigm for example (see § 1.3. afterward).
Compared to research about writing, few experimental studies have also been realized about note taking (for a
review, see Piolat, Roussey & Barbier, 2003), which constitutes a complex activity whatever the language. Indeed,
note takers have to understand information as quickly as possible in order to write it while the teacher is still
speaking. To record the most information possible during limited class time, note takers generally employ
abbreviating operations, syntactical short-cuts, paraphrasing statements, and a physical formatting of their notes
that differs from the linear text of written material.
Analyses of the structure of notes reveal that the techniques used when taking notes affect several levels of
language. Abbreviating procedures may apply to lexical units (namely spelling). For instance, end truncation
(writing down “poss.” for “possibility”), conservation of the frame of consonants, and suffix contraction (writing down
“recoged” for “recognized”) are common techniques of note taking (cf. Branca-Rosoff, 1998; Kiewra & Benton, 1988;
Kiewra, Benton, & Levis, 1987; Lindberg-Risch & Kiewra, 1990). It is also important to notice that the same note
taker can use a variety of techniques and that these techniques may differ quite a lot from one individual to
another. For example, the same word can be shortened in different ways within the same note taking task or from
one note taking task to another. Despite the range of techniques, some are sufficiently acquired and could be
transferred from one language to another, as indicated by research on note taking in first and second languages
(Chaudron, Loschsky & Cook, 1994; Clerehan, 1995). For instance, when the lexical structure of two languages is
comparable, suffix contraction can be used in the same way. In the two excerpts in Annex 1, the same student
contracted a suffix both in French (“indelle” for “individuelle” – “individual” in English) and in English (“recoged ” for
“recognized”). By contrast, some procedures seem to be well adapted in one language but not in the other (the
conservation of the frame of consonants, for example, in “bcp” in annex 1, for “beaucoup”, as we find it very often in
French but not so much in English). Transferred processes would therefore depend on the structure of both first
and second language. As an example, Japanese and French languages are very differently structured, and
Japanese students have to discover and to learn new techniques when they take notes in French (Barbier, Faraco,
Piolat, Roussey, & Kida, 2003). But the question remains to better understand how students transfer their
abbreviation procedures from one language to another, and if they succeed in using these procedures correctly
according to their second language particularities. Further research is needed to analyze the conditions for such a
transfer, as several factors might be involved : the structure of first and second languages, the degree of linguistic
knowledge in L2, the degree of automated abbreviation procedures, the cognitive load of the whole note taking
task, etc.
As for writing, it could be suggested that students would not perform in L2 as well at note taking in L1 because of
their linguistic level and because they have not automated many note taking procedures (such as abbreviation).
Demand on working memory resources should be required for translating and reading processes, and this would
have implications on the performance of the task as a whole. Some research about note taking in L2, by
considering quantitative variables such as the number of words produced, has already argued that student
performance in note taking in L2 is generally worse than in L1 (Clerehan, 1995 ; Faraco, Barbier, & Piolat 2002).
They tend to select and transcribe the information as it is heard from the teacher, without any transformation or
addition of new words (Barbier, Faraco, Piolat, Roussey, & Kida, 2003). As for writing, their lack of linguistic
abilities and automation leads these students to fragment more frequently their executive process, specifically at
inter- and intra words boundaries (Faraco, Barbier & Piolat, 2002). These studies have further revealed that
students in L2 suffer other difficulties at the conceptual level. The simultaneous selection of appropriate information
and the memorization of the hierarchical structure of their notes’ content present some particular constraints. Their
notes are more disorganised and confused, with no evidence in the structure to the main divisions of information,
such as titles, definitions or examples (Clerehan, 1995).
According to all of these data, researchers might argue that difficulties for adult writers learning a second language
are caused by a cognitive overload on their working-memory. As for writing, cognitive resources seem to be
specifically allocated for translating and reading. The articulation with other processes involved during note taking
at upper-levels would therefore be constrained. But no studies until now have been concerned with the effects of
cognitive effort on working-memory during note taking in L2.
Measuring Cognitive Effort with the Dual-Task Paradigm
Cognitive effort refers to the fraction of attention resources that are allocated to a process at a given moment
(Kahneman, 1973; Tyler, Her-tel, McCallum, & Ellis, 1979). Among the experimental methods that are available,
the dual-task technique has often been used for evaluating the cognitive effort engaged in higher-order cognitive
tasks, such as comprehension or text production. In these tasks, participants are asked to concurrently perform a
primary task and a secondary, probe task. For example, while composing a text or taking notes, participants must
react as fast as possible to tones (by pressing a mouse button or by saying “stop” to a microphone linked to a
vocal key) that are periodically produced at random intervals (generally between 15 and 45 seconds). The central
executive of working memory must coordinate the concurrent tasks, focus attention when each tone is detected,
and select a motor response as instructed. Reaction time (RT) in this dual task situation is compared with a control
condition when the probe is responded to as a single task. The degree of interference in RT (IRT) caused by the
primary task provides a measure of the amount of cognitive effort devoted to composition or note taking. So, if the
composition of two texts whose content is quite different engages a comparable degree of cognitive effort, the IRT
should not differ. Conversely, if one task engages more cognitive effort than another, then this should be revealed
in their respective IRTs. In sum, the longer the IRT, the more the primary task places demands on the central
resources of working memory.
Referring to studies where this kind of secondary task had been used, Piolat, Olive and Kellogg (in press)
compared the cognitive resources allocated to note taking compared to reading and writing by longhand. In one of
the experiments cited (Gérouit, Piolat, Roussey, & Barbier, 2001), note takers had to categorize their activity after
each reaction according to whether they were reading a booklet or recording information by writing it down.
Despite the reading task being highly involving, judging from the large IRT observed (590 ms), the note taking task
(661 ms) was still reliably more demanding. Other data are issued from the comparison between cognitive effort
associated to note taking (Piolat, in press; Roussey & Piolat, 2003), just copying (Olive & Piolat, 2002), and the
three major writing cognitive processes (planning, generating text, and revising; Piolat, Roussey, Olive & Farioli,
1996). It appears that the cognitive effort devoted to note taking is reliably higher than that devoted to copying. In
other words, taking notes is not a simple graphic transcription of the information that is carried out in the lecture or
in the reading. Indeed, in addition to operations of comprehension, when taking notes, note takers also select
information and reformulate the contents, operations which all require cognitive resources. Finally, the comparison
between note taking and writing processes confirms that writing an entirely original text requires more resources
than taking notes, even if the notes often present content characteristics different from what has been heard or
read. Planning the content of a text by retrieving and organizing ideas is certainly the most involving process
(Kellogg, 1994). It is more difficult than selecting the information that will be recorded.
In the review from Piolat, Olive & Kellogg (in press), comparisons were made across different tasks and studies.
But these comparisons led to inferences that must be tested in single experiments using statistical procedures.
From this perspective, the objective of our research work was to obtain more data about the cognitive resources
allocated to writing and note taking for students in their second language, as compared to in their first language.
Considering previous research (Piolat, Olive & Kellogg, in press), more cognitive effort and then less fluency
should be observed during writing than during note taking in both languages. During both writing and note taking,
more cognitive effort, and consequently, less fluency, should also be observed in L2 than in L1. And, specifically
during note taking, the amount of abbreviations produced should reveal the ability of note takers to develop
strategies for getting more time to write down all the words they hold in their minds from listening to the teacher
speak. But this ability to abbreviate notes should imply the acquisition of linguistic skills, and these procedures
often involve the translating process. By considering the previous hypothesis, as compared to their L1, students in
L2 should find it harder to employ abbreviation procedures.
In summary, three main goals were identified within this research:
1. To show that note taking in L1 is less costly than writing in L1 (Piolat, Olive, & Kellogg, in press);
2. To evaluate the cognitive effort used when students take notes in L1 as compared to L2 : because they need to
learn specific skills, cognitive effort during note taking in L2 should be more than cognitive effort during note
taking in L1;
3. To analyze if students transfer the note taking practices used in L1 to L2 situations.
Method
Participants and apparatus
21 native French students who had been studying English as second language at the University of Provence for
three years were each individually tested. All were volunteers who were payed for participating in the test, which
lasted 90 minutes.
Two texts were presented, one for each language. The texts were extracted from the “Guide for Studies at the
University of Provence” which is distributed to every students enrolled at this university, including foreign students.
The texts were comparable in length, structure and vocabulary, as the english text (a) was about studies and
curriculum at the University of Provence, while the French text (b) was about registration conditions at the
University of Provence. These texts contained approximately 850 words each. They have been tape-recorded, and
each of them lasted around 8 minutes. As a further measure, the speech flow of each lecturer was controlled, by
inserting 2 seconds of pause at the boundaries between each of the conceptual units boundaries. These ones had
been previously identified by using the judges’ method (5 judges who had to determine the content’s structure of
each texts).
Procedure
Participants were asked, individually, to realize 6 tasks. They were first tested to the secondary task that measured
cognitive effort while they realized the main task. For that, they were trained to the reaction task procedure, by
pressing a key each time they heard a prime sound delivered by a computer (this entertainment allowed the basic
reaction time of each student to be measured). Afterward, they had to realize 4 tasks, associated each time to the
reaction time procedure, as a double task. They had to take notes and to summarize the content they had listened
to by writing one page to inform other students about it. The sequence of these note taking and writing activities
was completed twice: in L1 and in L2, and the order was reversed for half of the students. After these tasks were
completed, participants answered a questionnaire concerning the level of mastery in L1 and L2 as well as their
comprehension level of the texts they took in notes.
Results
Three dependant variables have been specifically analyzed in this study. (1) the cognitive effort : the mean reaction
time during note taking and during writing; (2) the fluency: the mean number of words produced per minutes during
each activities; (3) the percentage of abbreviation procedures during note taking.
Mean reaction times (ms)
Cognitive effort involved during writing and note taking
300
275
L1
250
L2
225
200
Writing
Note taking
Figure 1: Mean reaction time (in milliseconds) to the sound prime during note taking and writing, in both languages
(L1 and L2).
Whatever is the language, students need significantly more time to react to the sound prime when they produce a
text than when they take some notes (F(1,20)=17.62, p<.0004). Writing is therefore more demanding of resources
than note taking, even in L2.
The cognitive effort of students within note taking vary according to the language. Students need more cognitive
resources for note taking in L2 than in L1 (F(1,20)=6.13, p<.022). But during writing, the difference is not significant
between the two languages (F(1,20)=1.89, p=.18).
Mean number of words (/ mn)
Writing and note taking fluency
35
30
L1
L2
25
20
15
Writing
Note taking
Figure 2: Mean number of words produced per minute during note taking and writing, in both languages (L1 and
L2).
These results come together with those obtained about cognitive effort. In each language, students perform with
less fluency in writing than in note taking (F(1,20)=38.39, p<.00001). And they are less fluent for note taking in L2
than in L1 (F(1,20)=56.74, p<.00001). But there is still no significant difference between the two languages for
writing (F(1,20)<1, p=.59).
Abbreviation procedures during note taking
French students participating in this study by note taking in English as L2 used significantly fewer abbreviation
procedures (15,4%) than in French as L1 (23,6%; F(1,20)=49.66, p<.00001).
Discussion
From these data, several interpretations can be suggested. First of all, it appears that resource demands on
working-memory depend on the nature of the activity. Whatever the language, note taking is always the less
resource-demanding activity and this allows students to be more fluent than in writing. Here again, the comparison
between note taking and writing (which involves planning, generating and revising text) confirms that planning the
content of a text is the most tasking process (Kellogg, 1994; Piolat, Olive & Kellogg, in press), in L1 as in L2.
Retrieving and organizing ideas during a text composition is still more demanding than selecting the information
that will be recorded.
But surprisingly in this research, no significant difference has been observed for writing in L2 or in L1. And students
don’t perform differently concerning their fluency. These data do not confirm all that has been observed in the
literature about writing in L2, suggesting that students in a second language are not always overloaded in working
memory as compared to their L1. After 3 years of learning a second language at university, students write in L2
with no more difficulty than in their native language.
The contrast between the two languages generally given in the literature is observed in this study, but only for note
taking. During this activity, processes are more demanding resources in L2 than in L1, and therefore students
perform differently: they are less fluent and they use less abbreviation procedures. By considering previous
research on note taking (see § 1.2.), this effort would depend on the level of automated linguistic knowledge,
including abbreviation procedures in L2. The lower is this level, the weaker is note taking performance.
Within this research, the question was also to better understand how students transfer their note taking skills. From
quantitative variables such as the percentage of abbreviation procedures, student performances in note taking in
L2 are worse than in L1. It appears that the cognitive load of the whole note taking task could explain this lack of
performances (Clerehan, 1995 ; Faraco, Barbier, & Piolat 2002). But it can not be suggested that students don’t
perform in L2 as well at note taking in L1 because of their linguistic level. That would have had consequences on
writing cognitive load also. Nevertheless, despite their advanced linguistic level, it appears that these students
didn’t have automated sufficiently note taking procedures in L2. Therefore, other researches are needed to analyze
the role of automated abbreviation procedures in L1 during note taking in L2. Is it possible to transfer them directly
in L2 ? or do they need to be adapted, transformed ? To reduce the cognitive effort during note taking in L2, some
note taking procedures have certainly to be automated within the second language context, according to this
language particularities.
In conclusion, whatever the language, note taking is a necessity at university. Studies on the impact of note taking
strategies on recall and achievement in exams have shown that students not only learn when they review their
notes, but also while they are taking their notes (Piolat, Roussey, & Barbier, 2003). However, note taking in L2
constitutes a particularly difficult activity to practice: despite their advanced level, and writing expertise in English,
note taking in L2 is still a real source of difficulty for the students involved in this study. If one considers that note
taking is one of the most important facets of learning at university, this study supports the idea that teaching a
second language at university should prepare the students to develop linguistic skills, but not only in writing tasks:
also in specific activities such as note taking.
Acknowledgements
The article was supported by a grant from the ACI “ Ecole et Sciences Cognitives ” (France) and a collaborative
Linkage grant from NATO (reference LST.CLG.979517) for a research project on “ Bilingual’s long-term working
memory strategies ”, in collaboration with professor Toomas Niit (Tallin Pedagogical University, Estonia) and
professor Sarah Ransdell (Florida University). We thanks especially Isaac Morgan for his reading and corrections.
References
Barbier, M.-L. (1998b). Rédaction de texte en langue première et en langue seconde: comparaison de la gestion
des processus et des ressources cognitives. Psychologie Française, 43(4), 361-370.
Barbier, M.-L., Faraco, M., Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., & Kida, T. (2003).Comparaison de la prise de notes
d’étudiants japonais et espagnols dans leur langue native et en français L2 [Comparing note taking between
Japanese and Spanish students in L1 and L2]. Arob@se 7, 1-2 [http://www.arobase.to/v7/] [may, 20, 2004]
Branca-Rosoff, S. (1998). Abréviations et icônes dans les prises de notes des étudiants. [Abbreviations and icons
in note taking by students] In M. Bilger, K. dan den Eynde & F. Gadet (Eds.) Analyse linguistique et approches de
l'oral. Recueil d'études offert en hommage à Claire-Blanche-Benveniste [Speech analysis. Festchrift to Claire
Blanche-Benveniste] (pp. 286-299). Leuven-Paris: Peeters.
Chaudron, C., Loschky, L., & Cook, J. (1994). Second language listening comprehension and lecture note-taking.
In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 75-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University
press.
Clerehan, R. (1995). Taking it down: Note taking practices of L1 and L2 students, English for specific purposes,
14(2), 137-157.
Faraco, M., Barbier, M.-L. & Piolat, A. (2002). A comparison between L1 and L2 note taking by undergraduate
students. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Serie Ed.), Studies in Writing & S. Ransdell & M.L. Barbier (Volume, Eds.), New
Directions in Research on L2 Writing (pp. 145-167). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gérouit, C., Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., & Barbier, M. L. (2001). Coût attentionnel de la recherche d’informations par
des adultes sur hypertexte et sur document papier. In M. Mojahid & J. Virbel (Eds.), Actes du 4° Colloque
International sur le Document Electronique (pp.201-215). Paris : Europia production.Kahneman, D. (1973).
Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In M.C. Levy & S.E. Ransdell (Eds.). The science of
writing. Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications (pp. 57-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The Psychology of Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kiewra, K. A., & Benton, S. L. (1988). The relationship between information-processing ability and note-taking.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 33-44.
Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., & Levis, L. B. (1987). Qualitative aspects of note taking and their relationship with
information-processing ability and academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 14 (3), 110-117.
Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct
composition. Language Learning, 42, 183-215.
Krings, H.P. (1994). What do we know about writing processes in L2? The state of the art. In K. Heinz Pogner (Ed),
More about writing (pp. 83-114). Odense: Institute of Language and Communication.
Lindberg-Risch, N., & Kiewra, K. A. (1990). Content and form variations in note taking: Effects among junior high
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(6), 355-357.
Olive, T., & Piolat, A. (2002). Suppressing Visual Feedback in written composition: Effects on Processing Demands
and Coordination of the Writing. International Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 209-218.
Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2002). The triple task technique for studying the processus of writing: Why
and How? In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), Studies in Writing & T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools
and techniques for studying writing (pp. 31-59). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pennington, M.C., & So, S. (1993). Comparing writing process and product across two languages: a study of 6
Singaporean university students writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 41-63.
Piolat, A. (in press). Effects of note taking technique and working-memory span on cognitive effort. In G.
Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), Studies in Writing, & D. Galbraith, M. Torrance, & L. van Waes (Vol. Eds.), Recent
developments in writing process research (Vol.1 : Basic processes and word-level effects). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Piolat, A, Olive, T. & Kellogg, R. (in press). Cognitive effort during note taking. Cognitive Applied Psychology.
Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., Olive, T. & Farioli, F. (1996). Charge mentale et mobilisation des processus
rédactionnels : examen de la procédure de Kellogg [Mental load and time processing of writing: test of Kellogg’s
procedure]. Psychologie française, 41-4, 339-354.
Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., & Barbier, ML. (2003). Mesure de l’effort cognitif : Pourquoi est-il opportun de comparer
la prise de notes à la rédaction, l’apprentissage et la lecture de divers documents ? [Measuring cognitive effort:
Why is it relevant to compare note taking, writing, learning and reading] Arob@se, 1-2, 118-140
[http://www.arobase.to]. [may, 20, 2004]
Ransdell, S., & Barbier, M.-L. (2002). An introduction to psycholinguistic approaches to understanding second
language writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Serie Ed.), Studies in Writing & S. Ransdell & M.L. Barbier (Volume, Eds.),
New Directions in Research on L2 Writing (pp. 1-10). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ransdell, S., & Levy, M. (1998). Writing in a second language and the limits of working memory. Paper presented
at the 1998 European Writing conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group on Writing. Poitiers. France.
Ransdell, S. E., Arecco, M. R., & Levy, C. M. (2001). Bilingual long-term working memory: The effects of working
memory loads on writing quality and fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 117-132.
Ransdell, S., Lavelle, B., & Levy, C.M. (2002). The effect of training a good working memory strategy on L1 and L2
writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Serie Ed.), Studies in Writing & S. Ransdell & M.L. Barbier (Volume, Eds.), New
Directions in Research on L2 Writing (pp. 133-144). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roca de Larios, J., Marin, J., & Murphy, L., (2001). A temporal analysis of formulation processes in L1 and L2
writing. Language Learning, 51, 497-538.
Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., Marin, J. (2002). A critical examination of L2 writing process research. In G.
Rijlaarsdam (Serie Ed.), Studies in Writing, vol. 11 & S. Ransdell & M.L. Barbier (Volume, Eds.), New Directions in
Research on L2 Writing (pp.11-47). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roussey, J.-Y., & Piolat, A. (2003). Prendre des notes et apprendre. Effet du mode d'accès à l'information et de la
méthode de prise de notes [Taking notes and learning. Effects of the access mode to information and to the note
taking procedure]. Arob@se 7, 1-2. [http://www.arobase.to/somm.html]. [may, 20, 2004]
Tyler, S. W., Hertel, P. T., McCallum, M. C., & Ellis, H. C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. Human Learning & Memory, 5, 607-617.
Whalen, K., & Ménard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writer's strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level
discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381-481.
Annex 1
Abbreviation procedures (example from the same student in L1 and L2)
Note taking in French (First Language)
Note taking in English (Second Language)